NOAA Restoration Center
OMB Approval No.
Community-based Restoration Program (CRP)
Expires
0648-0472
05/31/2009
Progress Report Narrative Format
I.
II.
Project Title: Creosote Assessment in Puget Sound Beaches
(Award # NA06NMF4630083)
Reporting Period: (08/01/2006 – 12/31/2008)
Semi-annual performance reports are required no later than 30 days following each 6month period from the start date of the award; comprehensive final reports are due 90 days
after the expiration of the award. Reporting periods start on the first day of a given month,
and end on the last day of a given month.
III.
Project Narrative (this section is required for the final comprehensive report only)
The project narrative should identify the problems that the project has addressed, describe
short- and long-term objectives and goals and how they were met, and explain the relevance of
the project to enhancing habitat and/or to benefiting living marine resources, including a
description of any threatened or endangered species the project will benefit.
Creosote logs flagged at Spencer Spit State Park
Creosote wood debris is pervasive on Puget Sound’s beaches. Creosote is a pollutant of concern because
of the presence of toxic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that leach into water and sediments
where they accumulate and impact marine and nearshore organisms - sometimes reaching levels above
Washington State Department of Ecology sediment quality standards (Brooks 2003). The chronic
release of PAHs results in direct impacts to organisms that colonize or use habitat adjacent to treated
wood and cumulative impacts to organisms that utilize the benthic and nearshore environments. PAHs
can be harmful to Pacific herring, English sole and salmonids, among other marine organisms that
Page 1 of 12
colonize treated wood or otherwise utilize contaminated nearshore environments (Vines et al. 2000,
Myers et al. 2003, Casillas et al. 1995, 1998). For example, creosote compounds in water have been
shown to cause mortality of herring eggs and embryos at levels as low as 50 parts per billion (PSAT
2007). As an important food source for many species, such as salmonids and Orca, herring mortality can
have dramatic impacts on marine food webs. In addition, creosote is a human carcinogen, and people are
readily exposed to creosote on beaches through direct contact with logs, pilings and beach fires.
Creosote log at base of fort structure at Spencer Spit State Park
Since 2004, funded in part by Governor
Gregoire’s Puget Sound Initiative, the
Washington State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), the Northwest Straits
Commission and partners have removed over
6,000 tons of treated pilings and other debris
from Puget Sound beaches, including over
1,700 tons of creosote beach logs (see above
map). In an attempt to inform these efforts and
direct resources to areas where the need and
potential impacts are greatest, The Nature
Conservancy and DNR collaborated to conduct
a pilot assessment of the leaching of creosote
into several beach sediments surrounding rogue
creosote logs. The study was conducted in two
sites similar in geomorphology with relatively
high levels of creosote log deposition and
retention. DNR subsequently removed logs
from sampled beaches.
Map of DNR’s creosote debris removal projects in Washington
Our objectives for this project were to:
1) Inventory and remove creosote and treated wood from several thousand feet of shoreline in
Puget Sound.
2) Perform pilot assessment to determine the extent to which toxic creosote PAHs are present in
beach sediments around rogue creosote logs in Puget Sound and answer the following questions
to inform clean-up efforts:
Page 2 of 12
•
•
•
Do creosote compounds from rogue beach logs leach into surrounding sediments at
detectable levels? Are levels above Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE)
standards?
What factors affect PAH concentrations in sediment samples (e.g., beach environment)?
Is there a spatial pattern to leaching around logs?
The following describes our success at accomplishing these objectives:
Objective 1: Inventory and remove creosote and treated wood from several thousand feet of shoreline in
Puget Sound.
During this grant project, DNR, our lead partner, removed over 170 tons of rogue creosote logs from
more than 8 miles of shoreline at our study sites at Dungeness Spit National Wildlife Refuge and
Spencer Spit State Park.
DNR removed over 21 tons of creosote logs from Spencer Spit State Park.
Objective 2: Perform pilot assessment to determine the extent to which toxic creosote PAHs are present
in beach sediments around rogue creosote logs in Puget Sound
The Nature Conservancy collected 249 sediment samples at specified depths and distances from 18
creosote and 9 non-creosote logs at Dungeness Spit and Spencer Spit. In addition, we sampled logs in
three beach environments of varying wave energies: (wetland < spit bay-side < spit strait-side)
Page 3 of 12
Sampling at Spencer Spit State Park
Following sample analysis, we were able to answer the questions we posed at the start of data collection
(see Section IV for details):
•
Do creosote compounds from rogue beach logs leach into surrounding sediments at
detectable levels? Are levels above Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE)
standards?
Yes, Creosote compounds are prevalent at detectable levels in beach sediments near rogue creosote logs
and may be found in beach sediments near untreated logs in stable environments. We detected creosote
compounds in 85% of beach sediment samples near creosote logs and, surprisingly, in 50% of samples
near non-creosote logs, the latter mostly from lower-energy environments (wetland, spit-bay side).
Thirteen logs (two from Dungeness and 11 from Spencer Spit) had at least one sample that exceeded the
Department of Ecology’s Sediment Management Standards, suggesting potential risk to marine life.
Samples from Spencer Spit had higher PAH concentrations than those from Dungeness Spit and were
more likely to exceed thresholds.
•
What factors affect PAH concentrations in sediment samples?
PAH concentrations are higher in stable environments (lagoon/wetland, spit-bay side) where logs likely
have a longer residence time. Species and life stages that preferentially utilize these stable habitats may
be more at risk.
•
Is there a spatial pattern to leaching around logs?
PAH concentrations are greatest within 5 cm distance and 3 cm depth from logs, but were detected in
some samples at the farthest sampling distance.
These pilot results suggest the need to invest in strategic removal of creosote debris as a critical
component of Puget Sound recovery. Because some samples exceeded Washington Department of
Ecology standards, there is a risk posed to marine life by rogue creosote logs, especially in low-energy
environments where logs tend to accumulate over time and sediments may be less porous. Often, these
low-energy areas are sensitive wetlands that provide habitat and refuge for many species, including
juvenile life stages that may be more susceptible to the toxic effects of PAHs.
The results also suggested needed actions and possible best management practices:
Page 4 of 12
•
•
•
•
Invest in a larger study of creosote leaching into beach sediments that would include bioassays
and corresponding biological impacts and would provide further data on the amount of leaching
into beach sediments.
Assess the reduction of PAH levels following removal of source logs or structures to determine
if natural recovery is sufficient for reducing PAH levels.
Assess other potential sources of PAH inputs that would influence study results.
Invest in strategic creosote removal efforts (log and structures) as a component of Puget Sound
recovery, where the following environments might be prioritized:
• stable, high-risk habitats, especially as they correspond with sites important for at-risk
species or sensitive life stages
• public sites with high human visitation
• sites with high densities of creosote logs
• water bodies with poor circulation and reduced flushing of contaminants
Because the use of new creosote pilings in marine environments is prohibited, removing rogue creosote
logs results in a real and permanent reduction in the known source of toxic contamination in critical
nearshore habitats. Such strategic investments in log removals throughout Puget Sound could benefit
many marine and nearshore species, including forage fish that lay their eggs in contaminated sediments,
shorebirds that feed on nearshore-dependent species, and at-risk Puget Sound salmonids that utilize
pocket estuary and nearshore wetland habitats as juveniles (e.g., Chinook, summer chum, steelhead).
We encountered two notable problems during this project, which we discuss below along with the
learning opportunities that these challenges offered:
1. We experienced initial difficulty in locating a site with significant creosote logs and access sufficient
to warrant removal from a cost/benefit perspective. At one of our sites (the Conservancy’s
Foulweather Bluff preserve), a severe winter storm washed away nearly all of the creosote logs,
while at another of our preferred removal sites, on Nature Conservancy property at Port Susan Bay,
we could not obtain access to the adjacent dike that would allow effective and efficient debris
removal. We may be able to address access constraints over time at our Port Susan Bay preserve, but
this limitation is not unique to other potential removal sites, including sites that may be very high
priorities for creosote removal for ecological reasons.
Further, we learned that prioritizing removal of logs that are lower in the intertidal beach area,
especially in more dynamic environments, is less efficient because winter storms will often move
these logs. Logs that are located high in the intertidal zone, especially in partially enclosed wetland
areas, are more likely to remain on site over multiple years and are more likely to contribute to site
contamination – and are therefore a higher priority for removal.
2. In addition, the lack of an established protocol for beach sediment sampling near rogue creosote logs
challenged us to select a sampling strategy that would detect PAH concentrations at significant
levels (if they existed) but also detect where PAH levels begin to decline in the sediments
surrounding logs so that managers understand the total potential extent of creosote sediment
contamination surrounding creosote beach logs. We revised our sampling protocol after results from
sampling and external technical review at our first site (Dungeness Spit) suggested that we needed
additional samples near each log to detect a statistically significant spatial pattern, and that we might
find significant PAH levels at greater depths than we initially sampled. We hope that the
methodology we used can assist future efforts in determining appropriate beach sediment sampling
protocols at the outset.
Page 5 of 12
The beach-sediment sampling results from this project combined with these lessons learned can inform
future research on contamination of beach sediments resulting from creosote log retention in beach
habitats and can direct and help prioritize removal of creosote from Puget Sound’s beaches.
IV.
Methodology
Describe the methodology used to undertake on-the-ground activities during this reporting
period to achieve the project goals and objectives, including the specific techniques and
materials used.
Objective 1: Creosote Log Removal
On October 27-29, 2008, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) removed over
21 tons of creosote logs at Spencer Spit State Park by helicopter. The Nature Conservancy assisted with
this effort and DNR provided the removal effort as inkind match for this project. The removal was done
using Best Management Practices (BMPs) developed by DNR for creosote debris removals (please see
Report #6 for details on methodology).
Objective 2: Beach-Sediment Sampling and Analysis
We sampled beach sediments at several distances and depths (N=249) from creosote and noncreosote logs on two Puget Sound spit-landform beaches to assess transport of creosote into beach
sediments:


Dungeness Spit National Wildlife Refuge – Olympic Peninsula, Strait of Juan de Fuca –
sampled September 2006 (creosote log removal by DNR in September 2006)
Spencer Spit State Park, Lopez Island, San Juan Islands, Rosario Strait – sampled July
2008
Dungeness Spit
Spencer Spit
Page 6 of 12
We sampled 27 logs (9 at Dungeness Spit and 18 at Spencer Spit), including 18 creosote logs and 9 noncreosote control logs. Samples were divided among three different habitat types of varying wave
energies (wetland < spit bay-side < spit strait-side) (Table 1).
Wetland/lagoon – long
residence time
Spit-bay side – moderate
residence time
Spit-strait side – short
residence time
Table 1. Distribution of logs across habitats and sampling sites.
Wetland
Creosote
Non-creosote
Spit-bay side
Creosote
Non-creosote
Spit-strait side
Creosote
Non-creosote
Total
Creosote
Non-creosote
Dungeness Spit
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
9
6
3
Spencer Spit
6
4
2
4
3
2
7
5
2
18
12
6
We sampled at several depths at distances from each log (Table 2). Based on results from Dungeness
Spit sampling, we sampled more extensively at Spencer Spit to better define the pattern of leaching.
Table 2. Distribution of samples across sampling distances and depths by sampling site.
Depth
1 inch
Dungeness
Spencer
3 inches
Dungeness
Spencer
9 inches
Dungeness
Spencer
Distance
2 inches
27
9
18
27
9
18
15
0
15
6 inches
18
0
18
18
0
18
17
0
17
12 inches
26
9
17
26
9
17
15
0
15
18 inches
23
9
14
23
9
14
14
0
14
Page 7 of 12
Data Analysis
Samples were sent to the lab of Friedman & Bruya, Inc. and tested for PAHs (Method 8270C SIM),
resulting in concentrations (ppb) for each of the individual chemical constituents of creosote found in
that sample. Each sample was analyzed for 16-18 PAHs found in commonly found creosote. The Nature
Conservancy then visually graphed and statistically analyzed (using general linear modeling) total PAH
concentrations for each sample to attempt to answer the questions posed in Objective 2 (See Section V
for results). In addition, we provided sampling data to the Washington State Department of Ecology
through their sediment management program database (http://www.ecy.wa.gov/eim/MyEIM.htm), and
they provided us with a comparison of PAH values in Dungeness and Spencer Spit beach sediment
samples to state sediment standards. DOE uses the Apparent Effects Threshold (AET) for their sediment
management standard. The AET is a conservative threshold in that PAH concentrations detected in
sediments that exceed this value (set specifically for each chemical) are always expected to result in
adverse effects for the specified marine species indicator. For our comparison, we used the lowest AET
value available out of all the examined marine species indicators for each PAH – this results in the most
sensitive detection of potential adverse effects to marine life within the confines of the AET.
V.
Results/Progress to Date
Describe in sufficient detail the status of the project (planning/design, implementation,
monitoring, complete) in terms of progress and results achieved during the reporting
period. This should include information such as the actual acreage that were
restored/enhanced/protected or created to date (cumulative), and how this measurement
was determined; projected acreage yet to be restored with CRP funds; miles of stream that
were opened or will be opened for fish passage; lessons learned during this reporting
period; challenges or potential roadblocks to future progress; and an updated timeline of
remaining tasks needed to complete project.
This project is now complete and we report on the results below for our project objectives.
Objective 1: Inventory and remove creosote and treated wood from several thousand feet of shoreline in
Puget Sound.
The Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) successfully removed and disposed of
150 tons of creosote logs from Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge in October 2006 and over 21 tons of
creosote logs from Spencer Spit State Park in October 2008 (DNR contributed their removal efforts at
Spencer Spit as in-kind match for this grant – see Report #6 for detailed description and photos from the
Spencer Spit removal effort).
Objective 2: Perform pilot assessment to determine the extent to which toxic creosote PAHs are present
in beach sediments around rogue creosote logs in Puget Sound.
The following are results from our beach-sediment sampling in direct response to the questions we posed
in Objective 21:
1
p values are provided for those relationships that were statistically analyzed.
Page 8 of 12
Do creosote compounds from rogue beach logs leach into surrounding sediments at detectable levels?
Are levels above Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) standards?
At least one PAH is present above background levels2 in over 80% of samples near creosote logs and
over 50% of samples near untreated logs at both Dungeness and Spencer Spits (Figure 1). Eight or more
PAHs are present above background levels in over 20% of samples near creosote and untreated logs at
Dungeness Spit and in nearly 70% of creosote logs and 30% of untreated logs at Spencer Spit (Figure 2).
86% of untreated logs with detectable levels of one or more PAH were found either in wetland (57%) or
spit-bay side (29%) samples.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Samples that have at least eight PAHs above
baseline levels
creosote
untreated
Dungeness Spit
Percent
Percent
Samples that have at least one PAH above
baseline levels
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Spencer Spit
Fig 1. Percent of samples with one PAH above baseline.
creosote
untreated
Dungeness Spit
Spencer Spit
Fig 2. Percent of samples with eight PAHs above baseline.
PAH levels exceeded conservative standards (Apparent Effects Threshold) in samples from:
 Dungeness Spit: 2 of 9 creosote logs (both from the spit-bay side environment);
 Spencer Spit: 11 out of 12 creosote logs (from all 3 environments) and 3 out of 5 untreated
logs (from wetland and bayside environments).
What factors affect PAH concentrations in sediment samples?
At Dungeness Spit the total PAH concentration of beach sediment samples was significantly affected by
three factors (Figures 3 and 4; F=3.791, p=0.008275): 1) log treatment (i.e., creosote > untreated), 2)
beach environment (i.e., wetland > spit bay side and spit strait side), 3) horizontal distance of the sample
from the log (close (5 cm) > middle (30 cm) and far (46 cm)).
2
Minimum concentration at which detection of chemical is reported, usually determined by the method detection
limit for the analysis methodology.
Page 9 of 12
Dungeness Spit
Dungeness Spit
6000
5000
4000
creosote
3000
untreated
2000
1000
Average Total PAH (ppb)
Average Total PAH (ppb)
6000
5000
4000
creosote
3000
untreated
2000
1000
0
0
wetland
spit-bay side
spit-strait side
5,3
5,8
Beach Environment
30,3
30,8
46,3
46,8
Distance, Depth (cm)
Figure 3. Total PAH by environment at Dungeness Spit.
Figure 4. Total PAH by distance at Dungeness Spit.
At Spencer Spit the total PAH concentration of beach sediment samples was significantly affected by
two factors (Figures 5 and 6; F=3.44, p=0.009665): 1) beach environment (wetland and spit-bay side >
spit-strait side), 2) vertical depth of sample from beach sediment surface (shallow (3 cm) > medium (8
cm) and deep (23 cm). Total PAH concentration was not significantly affected by the log treatment (i.e.,
whether or not it contained creosote), probably due to the apparent pervasiveness of creosote in the
nearshore and high PAH values near untreated logs in the wetland.
Spencer Spit
100000
80000
creosote
60000
untreated
40000
20000
Average Total PAH (ppb)
100000
80000
creosote
60000
untreated
40000
20000
23,46
23,30
23,5
23,15
8,46
8,30
8,5
8,15
spit-strait side
3,46
spit-bay side
3,5
wetland
3,30
0
0
3,15
Average Total PAH (ppb)
Spencer Spit
Depth, Distance (cm)
Beach Environment
Figure 5. Total PAH by environment at Spencer Spit.
Figure 6. Total PAH by depth at Spencer Spit.
Is there a spatial pattern to leaching around logs?
The results were fairly variable and differed by site; however beach sediment samples taken closer to the
log did have significantly higher total PAH concentrations. At Dungeness Spit horizontal distance was
statistically important in determining total PAH; while at Spencer Spit, vertical depth was important
(Figures 4 and 6). Total PAH concentrations declined significantly in beach sediment samples farther
from logs, but PAHs were still detected at levels above baseline at the farthest sampling distances (i.e.,
46 cm distance and 23 cm depth).
In conclusion, we found that:
• Creosote compounds are prevalent at detectable levels in beach sediments near rogue creosote
logs and may be found in beach sediments near untreated logs in stable environments.
• Some PAH levels exceed DOE thresholds and may cause harm to marine life.
• Samples from Spencer Spit had higher PAH concentrations than those from Dungeness
Spit and were more likely to exceed thresholds.
Page 10 of 12
•
•
PAH concentrations are higher in stable environments (lagoon/wetland, spit-bay side) where
logs likely have a longer residence time. Species and life stages that preferentially utilize these
stable habitats may be more at risk.
PAH concentrations are greatest within 5 cm distance and 3 cm depth from logs, but were
detected in some samples at the farthest sampling distance.
These pilot results suggest needed actions and possible best management practices:
• Invest in a larger study of creosote leaching into beach sediments that would include bioassays
and corresponding biological impacts and would provide further data on the amount of leaching
into beach sediments.
• Assess the reduction of PAH levels following removal of source logs or structures to determine
if natural recovery is sufficient for reducing PAH levels.
• Assess other potential sources of PAH inputs that would influence study results.
• Invest in strategic creosote removal efforts (log and structures) as a component of Puget Sound
recovery, where the following environments might be prioritized:
• stable, high-risk habitats, especially as they correspond with sites important for at-risk
species or sensitive life stages
• public sites with high human visitation
• sites with high densities of creosote logs
• water bodies with poor circulation and reduced flushing of contaminants
As mentioned in the project narrative, this study suggests that by permanently removing a known source
of toxic contamination from critical nearshore habitats, strategic investment in log removals throughout
Puget Sound could benefit many marine and nearshore species, including forage fish that lay their eggs
in contaminated sediments, shorebirds that feed on nearshore-dependent species, and at-risk Puget Sound
salmonids that utilize pocket estuary and nearshore wetland habitats as juveniles (e.g., Chinook, summer
chum, steelhead).
The Nature Conservancy has provided these results to the Washington State Department of Natural
Resources and is collaborating with DNR to seek funding for and prioritize additional removals and
research. Additionally, we will complete an external review of the PAH data from Spencer Spit and
following this review, we will broadly distribute our results to partners working on creosote debris
removal in Puget Sound. Further follow up beyond the terms of this grant agreement will include
revisiting Dungeness Spit National Wildlife Refuge to assess the rate of return of creosote logs following
removal.
VI.
Monitoring and Maintenance Activities
Describe any monitoring and maintenance that has taken place during the reporting period
and/or procedures that are being used to evaluate the relative success of the project in
achieving its goals and objectives. When will monitoring results become available?
During this grant period, we completed a follow-up inventory at the Conservancy's Foulweather Bluff
preserve (August 14, 2008). Foulweather Bluff was one of the initially proposed removal sites, but
during the winter of 2007-2008, all creosote and other beach logs were washed off site by a storm event.
During the follow-up inventory, Conservancy staff found that 20 new creosote logs had recruited to the
site since the previous winter. This is generally not enough logs to warrant a removal effort. Further,
many of these new logs were located toward the water side of an existing line of beach logs and the
flanking wetland and may again move off the site during the 2008-2009 winter season.
Page 11 of 12
Additionally, we plan to perform a follow-up inventory at Dungeness Spit with the Department of
Natural Resources this spring or early summer. Due to winter storms and limited site access, this work
was not completed during the grant period.
These follow-up inventories of creosote beach log recruitment will provide data on the rate of return of
creosote logs to a site following removal, including the degree of log recruitment to sensitive protected
environments with supposed longer log residence times. These data, along with pilot data on the leaching
of creosote beach logs in different beach environments, can help to inform the need for subsequent
removal efforts at these sites.
VII. Community Involvement
Describe community support and any public involvement in the project that has occurred
during the reporting period, including the specific roles of volunteers in project activities.
Two volunteers were recruited and assisted with sediment sampling and data analysis.
VIII. Outreach Activities
Describe any outreach or educational activities (e.g. training, brochures, videos, press
releases or public events) related to the project that has occurred during the reporting
period.
We conducted informal educational outreach to numerous members of the public and park staff
during sediment sampling and log removal efforts.
Formally, we presented a poster describing this project and our results at both the Restore America’s
Estuaries conference in October 2008 in Providence, Rhode Island and at the Puget Sound-Georgia
Basin Ecosystem conference in February 2009 in Seattle, Washington. These events resulted in
contacts for additional data review as well as contacts that could utilize the results of this study to
inform their creosote removal and sampling efforts. Further dissemination of results will be
conducted following the end of this grant.
IX.
Supporting Materials
Please include any supporting materials relating to the project, such as articles/news
clippings, project photographs (before, during, and after--high resolution images on CD
ROM are appreciated), project maps, related web sites, and evidence of NOAA
Community-based Restoration Program support (e.g. photographs of signs at project sites,
funding credit on outreach materials, press releases with complete program name, etc.)
Please see previously provided supporting materials as well as the following attachment:
o Attachment 1: Poster prepared for the Puget Sound-Georgia Basin Ecosystem conference,
February 9-11 2009, Seattle, WA.
Page 12 of 12